Of Hawks and Doves

There are things that a hawk can do which a dove cannot. I refer to hawks pursuing peace with an “enemy” and not receiving the flak that a dove would for the same act. History is replete with such examples. Cukierman and Tomassi  in “Why Does it Take a Nixon to go to China”? (UCLA Working Paper)  provide interesting analysis of such hawk-dove issues. To quote them: “The history of public policy contains several episodes in which structural reforms or important economic or foreign policy shifts were implemented by parties of policymakers whose traditional position was to oppose such policies”.

As examples of hawks mimicking doves, one recalls the US President Richard Nixon reaching out to China’s Chairman Mao and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel signing a peace treaty with Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat. Closer to home, Prime Minister Vajpayee met Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff of Pakistan in 1999 and signed the Lahore Declaration  just months before the Kargil war and the subsequent overthrow of Sharif by General Pervez Musharraf. Vajpayee also met Pervez Musharraf (as President of Pakistan) for the Agra Summit in 2001 barely six months before the attack on the Indian parliament. And now comes the completely unexpected, but welcome, overture to Pakistan by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the form of an invitation to Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff to attend the inauguration of the new BJP government. Just as Nixon had established a staunch anti-communist record and image before extending a hand of friendship to China, likewise the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had established its hawkish credentials with talk of “hot pursuit” in 1998 (see here) as well as the scathing attack on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh (see here)  among much other strong criticism of the UPA government with respect to its Pakistan policy.

It is interesting to look at Prime Minister Modi’s invitation to Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff in this context. There is essentially no substantive difference between what Modi has done and what Manmohan Singh had enunciated in Parliament in July 2009 (see here): both positions state that talks/communications/contact will go on between India and Pakistan despite terror attacks and the festering Kashmir issue. But Manmohan Singh and the Congress in general were seen as doves and were thought to have compromised Indian interests. Modi and the BJP have now taken up a dovish position after having demonstrated their hawkishness. This kills two birds with one stone.  Being originally hawkish, no one accuses them of a sell out. On the other hand, the Congress having advocated a dovish position on Pakistan cannot now criticise the BJP for inviting Nawaz Shariff for Modi’s swearing-in ceremony.

The hawk-dove position that Modi has initiated, presumably, with the full backing of his party, is a welcome development especially for those who have always advocated keeping channels of communication open between India and Pakistan: it is pragmatic and it is beneficial. Belligerent posturing can get the BJP a lot of Facebook likes but that is not how governments are run: governing imposes responsibility on the person and the party. It can only be an immature person who would continue to behave in a hawkish manner after taking over the reins of government. This sense of responsibility is something that Modi might have to drill into some of colleagues/ministers. In this context, I present Exhibit A which captures rather perfectly the stark difference between the maturity levels displayed by Modi and by Nitin Gadkari (now a cabinet minister). The street-level fight that Gadkari indulges in should be cause for extreme concern for any right-thinking Indian. Such aggressive posturing by a high-ranking BJP leader makes a mockery of the magnanimous gesture of Modi. In the absence of a firm message from Modi (who comes to the high office with a strong reputation of governing with a firm hand), it is possible that such embarrassments may bedevil the BJP government periodically.